As you probably know, it can be a challenge for a person that is not accustomed to being in the public limelight to step onto the stage and engage in detail discussions related to the vast topics that come up in governing our City.

Pardon the Pun, but it does matter. Your Vote is essential in protecting the character of Palo Alto that we all know and love.

Palo Alto is facing precedent setting decisions that will greatly impact what our future looks like.
1. Will we find financial balance, or will we hand a monster Bond to our children to deal with?
2. Will we sell our park lands to pay for our overspending?

As you probably know, it can be a challenge for a person that is not accustomed to being in the public limelight to step onto the stage and engage in detail discussions related to the vast topics that come up in governing our City.

With that said, thank you for your interest my advocacy for fiscal balance, and for measures to moderate growth through consistent and objective measures to value "Public Benefit" as projects are considered.

Regionalization is a theme that needs to be embraced by the City of Palo Alto. Some ideas will work and others will not, but we need to explore the possibilities with an open mind.

For example, we all know that disasters do not confine themselves to political boundaries, yet we have a separate director of Emergency Preparedness, and a portion of the Public Safety facility involves an Emergency command center, yet these seem to be resources that could be shared with Stanford? Mountain View? Los Altos? Menlo Park? etc.

"Editorial: Stretching the Brown Act (as published in the Palo Alto Weekly)
Tight-lipped, city staff defends closed council sessions to discuss selling small foothills parcel.

For one, there has been no policy discussion, at least in open session where the law requires it must occur, about whether or why the city should even consider selling this parcel. Yet for unexplained reasons, city staff is already negotiating the terms and price of a sale in private...." read full story at http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=26870

The City Infrastructure report categorized the "Infrastructure Deficit" as in several categories like "Catch up", "Keep Up", "Special Projects" or replacement needs, and then there are prudent reserves for future needs. We all know that things don't "wear out" all at once, but we do know with some precision the "useful lives" of those assets and setting up prudent reserves for the day they do break is a common business practice.

Whether the "Deficit" is $300 million or $400 million does not change the need for fundamental change in the City's budgeting and spending.

Gone are the political boxes that we place candidates. Doing more with less is a reality that must be embraced by all political flavors. Within the financial balance, we can return to voicing our political philosophies that would determine priorities.

However, until we reach that fiscal balance, we have to be on the same team that embraces a little sacrifice for all. A popular notion? No. A necessity? Absolutely. Unify to thrive.